Local Blogs

About this blog: I am a native of Alameda County, grew up in Pleasanton and currently live in the house I grew up in that is more than 100 years old. I spent 39 years in the daily newspaper business and wrote a column for more than 25 years in add... (More)

About this blog: I am a native of Alameda County, grew up in Pleasanton and currently live in the house I grew up in that is more than 100 years old. I spent 39 years in the daily newspaper business and wrote a column for more than 25 years in addition to writing editorials for more than 15 years. I have served as a director of many non-profits in the Valley and the broader Bay Area and currently serve as chair of Teen Esteem and on the advisory board of Shepherd?s Gate. I also served as founding chair of Heart for Africa and have travelled to Africa seven times to serve on mission trips. My wife, Betty Gail, has taught at Amador Valley High (from where we both graduated) since 1981. She and I both graduated from the University of California, Berkeley, as did both of my parents and my three siblings. Given that Cal tradition, our daughter went south to the University of Southern California and graduated with a degree in international relations. Since graduation, she has taken three mission trips and will be serving in the Philippines for nine months starting in September. (Hide)

Just saying No

Uploaded: Aug 9, 2012

The resounding No from the Livermore Recreation and Park District to the city of Livermore on the subject of a joint venture was notable.
The park district has been brutally hit by the state decision to shift property tax revenue to education that took place a number of years ago. It's been a $6 million hit to the park district from its primary revenue sourceproperty tax. Unlike cities that have multiple sources of tax revenue, the park district survives on property tax plus user fees for its services.
With the state diverting up to 60 percent of that revenue stream, the district has survived with a lean staff. Its boundaries largely overlap with the cities and the vast majority of its constituents are also residents of Livermore.
The city had proposed a sensible approachset up the park and recreation district as an enterprise fund within the city operation. Enterprise funds (similar to water and sewer designated accounts) operate as stand-alone funds independent of the general fund.
The city and some forward-thinking park district directors (notably the now retired Scott Kamena) had suggested a merger given the tough finances of the park district and the city's broader revenue stream.
By becoming part of the city, the property tax shift would have been reduced to the city's level, returning more local money to the parks/recreation operation, according to the city viewpoint. It appeared to be a win-win, except for the board of directors who presumably would move into an advisory role without direct accountability to the voters for budget and operations.
District officials debate whether the calculation on the property tax shift would change, arguing that it would not.
From a bit of a distance, it has the appearance of turf protection instead of looking out for constituents. If the property tax calculation would work, that would mean as much as an additional $4 million for district operations. If that doesn't happen, consolidation should save overhead from office and administrative staff allowing for more money to go to services for residents.
The city had a demonstrated record of balancing varying interestsit's easily the smallest city in the county that operates its own library and has done so for decades in good times and challenging economic times.
It's unfortunate that the park district directors did not at least have the conversation. Checking out options always is a good idea and it's ironic that they flat out rejected that opportunity in a community that has pioneered cooperation between its public agencies.